Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Devbook MCP Server

Devbook MCP Server

by leouofa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

devbook_get_prompt

Retrieves a prompt's full Markdown template, metadata, attachments, and optional rendered HTML by ID so agents can inspect and reuse prompt content.

Instructions

Retrieve a prompt's full Markdown template content, metadata, attachments, and optional rendered HTML

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "devbook_get_prompt"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesUnique identifier of the prompt
render_markdownNoWhether to include rendered HTML in the response

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; 'Retrieve' signals a read-only operation and it lists the returned components, which is helpful. It does not say what happens for a nonexistent id, whether attachments are inline or referenced, or anything about size/pagination limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every listed element earns its place by telling the agent what comes back.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of return contents usefully compensates, and the tool itself is simple (one required id). The main residual gap is failure behavior for invalid ids.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The only added meaning is that rendered HTML is optional via render_markdown; the description adds nothing about the id parameter beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (a prompt's full Markdown template) and enumerates the payload: content, metadata, attachments, optional rendered HTML. It implicitly distinguishes itself from devbook_list_prompts by returning a single prompt's full body, though it never names a sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: fetch one prompt by id when you need the complete template rather than a listing. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of how it relates to devbook_list_prompts or devbook_render_markdown.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools